IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.12178 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS).

Sunil @ Sarat @ Sabyasachi … Petitioner Panda -versus-

State of Odisha … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. M.M. Patnaik, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:13.05.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Tarasingi PS Case No.12 of 2008 corresponding to ST Case No.108 of 2015 (GR Case No.76 of 2008) pending in the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.121/ 121-A/ 122/ 124/ 147/ 148/ 435/ 436/ 506/ 120-B/ 149 of IPC r/w Sections 16/ 18/ 20/ 21/ 23/ 38/ 40 of UAP Act and U/Ss.25/27 of Arms Act and U/Ss.3/4/5 of ES Act and U/Ss.3/4 of PDPP Act, on the main allegation of rioting being armed with deadly weapons along with co-accused persons and setting fire to the office and furniture by hurling bombs and exchange of fire through guns and damaging government property.

2. Heard, Mr. Mruganka Mauli Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually and Mr. R.B. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in the present matter and perused the record including the report submitted by the learned trial Court.

3. Admittedly, the learned trial Court by his report has informed that the petitioner has been remanded in this case since 05.09.2014, but only 16 out of 54 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined till today and the trial is yet to be concluded. Out of 16 witnesses examined so far, none has supported the prosecution case. Right to speedy trial is in fact the fundamental right of an accused, but keeping a person in detention for period more than 10 years without the assurance of speedy trial would by any standard constitute violation of right to speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, the allegation against the petitioner is grave and serious, but the prosecution is unable to produce any convincing evidence till today to justify the further detention of the petitioner in custody. A person cannot be kept inside confinement for an indefinite period on the assurance that one day the trial would be concluded and in such event of long custody, the Under Trial Prisoner (UTP) would be worse sufferer. Further, if the UTP is acquitted of the charge after remaining in custody for substantial period, the process cannot be reversed to give the UTP to his earlier life because it is a irreversible process.

4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and after having considered the rival submissions and trial having not concluded even after more than 10 years custody of the petitioner, this Court without expressing any view on merits admits the petitioner to bail.

5. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin of the case on such terms and conditions as deem fit and proper by it with following conditions:-

(i) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail and (ii) the petitioner in the course of trial shall attend the trial Court on each date of posting without fail unless his attendance is dispensed with. In case the Petitioner fails without sufficient cause to appear in the Court in accordance with the terms of the bail, the learned trial Court may proceed against the Petitioner for offence U/S.269 of BNS, 2023 in accordance with law, (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till disposal of the case by intimating his present address of stay to the concerned Court, (iv) the petitioner shall report attendance before the Jurisdictional Polic